Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday remarked that the failure of the Mumbai Suburban District Collector to comply with its order of reconstructing a crematorium “borders on contempt”. On Sept 29, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar had directed Suburban Collector Nidhi Chaudhari to reconstruct the crematorium within four weeks.
Built by the fisherfolk community at Malad's Erangal, the crematorium was demolished after a PIL alleged violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms.
How long does it take to comply with the court’s order?
An irked CJ Datta said, “How long does it take to comply with the court’s order? We don’t appreciate the conduct of the collector. Why no application is made seeking time? This is taking the court’s order lightly.”
Additional Government Pleader Abhay Patki informed the court that on Oct 10, the deputy collector had addressed a letter to the BMC seeking its assistance. The civic body replied on Thursday giving an estimate of Rs29.64 lakh for the reconstruction of the crematorium and said that the same would have to be reimbursed by the collector.
Expressing dissatisfaction, the HC noted it had directed the collector “to take immediate steps” for reconstruction and report compliance. However, the collector had even failed to explain the “delay of 10 days in writing to the Municipal Corporation, if at all such a letter was necessary”.
Collector had written to SRA to obtain permission from MCZMA
On Oct 31, the collector had written to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to obtain permission from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for reconstruction of the crematorium.
Terming the move as “strange and surprising”, the HC said that its order did “not stipulate obtaining of any such permission as a pre-condition” since the crematorium existed before the CRZ notification came into effect on Feb 19, 1991.
The Court shall prejudice no one
Also, the court said that the reconstruction order was passed bearing in mind the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (the Court shall prejudice no one). The court was referring to the demolition order passed by another HC bench in January this year on a PIL alleging violation of CRZ norms.
“The conduct of the collector is such that the same borders on contempt,” said the court. However, it refrained from issuing contempt after Mr Patki said that it took time to comply with official formalities and the collector had no intention to disobey the HC order.
“To test the bonafides of the collector”, the HC said she shall be at liberty to remit Rs29.64 lakh to BMC while asking to file a compliance report on Friday.
.jpg)
